Conciseness

Mostly efficient: tool guidance is delivered as dense parameter/response-field tables rather than prose, and the workflow overview is compact. However, a few narrative passages are padded — the CancerVar verification anecdote ('Verified live on BRAF V600E... matches the tool's own documented worked example exactly (unlike InterVar below, this example was accurate)') includes editorializing, and the phrase 'unlike InterVar below' references an InterVar section that does not exist in the document, adding stale tokens. This fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' (4) rather than the lean 5 anchor.

Actionability

The body provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance: exact tool names with exact parameter spellings (including a 'WRONG vs CORRECT' parameter table for Phase 0), response key fields for parsing, a verified live example with concrete values (CancerVar on BRAF V600E: 'tier="Tier_I_strong", opai=0.99'), specific fallback chains per tool, and explicit instructions to compute via Python rather than describe. Specific examples cover the common cases, matching the 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The 8-phase workflow is clearly sequenced from input to report synthesis, with an explicit pre-flight validation checkpoint (Phase 0 parameter verification 'BEFORE calling ANY tool'), feedback loops for error recovery (Fallback Strategy section, 'retry once before reporting no data found' for IntOGen timeouts), and a completeness checklist in Phase 8. This matches the 5 anchor (clear sequence, explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklist); it is clearly above the 'minor validation gaps' 4 anchor. The skill is read-only analysis, so the destructive-operation validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is well sectioned, but it makes exactly one internal progressive-disclosure reference — 'For detailed code snippets and API call patterns for each phase, see ANALYSIS_DETAILS.md' (line 111) — and that file does not exist anywhere in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories, no ANALYSIS_DETAILS.md). A clearly signaled but dangling reference breaks navigation and leaves the promised per-phase code snippets unavailable, while ~245 lines of tool tables remain inlined. This fits 'some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled' territory (3) — the reference is signaled but non-functional, which is no better than a buried one.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions: "Transforms a gene + variant + cancer-type input into an actionable report: clinical evidence tier (CIViC, OncoKB), therapeutic options (FDA-approved + investigational), resistance mechanisms, prognosis, and matching clinical trials." Each output component is named concretely rather than described abstractly, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor; it is well above the 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps' (4) anchor.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is the full report transformation sentence (evidence tier, therapeutic options, resistance, prognosis, trials), and the 'when' is an explicit "Use for tumor-board variant calls, somatic-mutation actionability assessment, and treatment selection" clause with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the 5 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases a clinician or researcher would actually say are comprehensively covered with synonyms: "tumor-board variant calls", "somatic-mutation actionability assessment", "treatment selection", "precision oncology", plus "matching clinical trials" and "resistance mechanisms". This matches the comprehensive synonym coverage of the 5 anchor rather than the 'a few natural terms missing' 4 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (somatic cancer variant interpretation, "Always cancer-type-specific") with distinct triggers, but generic variant-interpretation queries like "interpret this mutation: TP53 R273H" (one of the skill's own examples) do not inherently signal cancer, creating minor overlap risk with a general variant-analysis sibling skill. This fits 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' (4) better than the minimal-conflict 5 anchor.